I saw a very interesting debate on the page recently and wanted to discuss it.
Do Science and Christianity contradict each other?
I don't think they do, but I am open to discussion.
Contradict?
Posts
Total:
112
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The age of the earth.
-->
@Stephen
The Bible says in Genisis, that it took God 6 days to create everything.
But in Revelations, it says that one day for God is like (metaphor) a thousand years for us.
So, putting two and two together, the metaphor the Bible uses, shows us that time works differently for God.
Or rather, God isn't restricted by time, because he created it.
So, when the Bible says that it took God 6 days to make the universe, for us it could have been perceived as 13.4 billion years.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No.
They are different.
And therefore can only contradict themselves.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
It is only a matter of interpretation and it is especially harmful the deliberately anti-science interpretations. Like "literally believing" God made from the core to the biosphere in 6 days, because all evidence would be circular reasoning, as it would have come from nowhere except historical scrolls and organized transcripts from them.
What specifically harmful is how people in Christianity revere one interpretation as "true" and "holy". I mean, didn't grammatical shifts occur when you translate a language from another more than 100 years ago? I am no expert but I am pretty sure semantical K's are immoral according to God in all translations, which is a much more solid message, much less likely to be away compared to whether God created the world in 6 literal days or in 6 stages with each longer than a day.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Christianity requires faith not evidence
Science requires evidence not faith
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But in Revelations, it says that one day for God is like (metaphor) a thousand years for us.
Okay, so 6 * 1000 = 6000. Not 13.4 billion. If you're going to use the words in the bible, then the words have to mean something, right? If you're just going to say "well, a thousand means 223 million maybe," then there's no point in having this discussion at all. You're better off debating does CHRISTIANITY contradict science, because the bible binds you to the words in the book against actual demonstrable knowledge. Stuff like stars came AFTER light, for example, in the bible, where we now know that stars and light exist simultaneously. Did ancient hebrews even have a concept of "a billion" anything? THat seems pretty advanced thinking for a culture who contributed so little of import to their time.
And as I said in your other thread on this, which version of the bible are you working with? And why that one, how do you know it's the authoritative version?
-->
@Vegasgiants
Christianity requires faith not evidence. Science requires evidence not faith.
Christianity, as a faith, has been around for more than two millennia and has a faithful following of over 2.4 billion people worldwide. Christians believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, who lived over 2,000 years ago and who was famously crucified and resurrected from the dead. While some may view Christianity as a mere collection of myths, there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that the religion is indeed true.
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the truth of Christianity is the fact that Jesus Christ himself existed. While some may dispute the veracity of the Bible or other documents, there are many historical accounts that attest to the existence of a man named Jesus who lived in the region around the Mediterranean during the early first century A.D.
Additionally, many of the stories and teachings associated with Jesus have been passed down through history and continue to be relevant today.The life and death of Jesus are also compelling pieces of evidence for Christianity's truth. Jesus' teachings encouraged love, compassion, and forgiveness, and these values continue to be central to Christian teachings today. The fact that Jesus was crucified for his beliefs also speaks to the overwhelming power of his message and the threat it posed to the status quo of his time.
Another important piece of evidence for Christianity's truth is the fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. This miraculous event is documented in the Bible, and there are countless accounts of Jesus appearing to his followers after his death, in some cases even eating and drinking with them. While some may argue that this event is nothing more than a myth or a fabrication, the sheer number of witnesses and the depth of detail in these accounts suggests otherwise.
The spread of Christianity is also evidence of its veracity. Despite persecution and suppression by many powerful states, the movement grew and spread rapidly throughout the world. This could be attributed to the power of the message itself, but it is also indicative of the fact that those who believed were genuinely convinced of its truth.
Lastly, Christianity has been responsible for countless positive changes throughout history. The religion has inspired great works of art, music, and literature, and has been at the forefront of numerous social justice movements. From the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement, Christians have been at the forefront of many efforts to challenge oppression and work for a better world.
In conclusion, while some may view Christianity as nothing more than a collection of myths, there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that it is indeed true. From the existence and teachings of Jesus to the miracle of his resurrection
-->
@Best.Korea
Most of the world believed the world was flat at one time too
A lot of people believing something is not evidence it is true
Every religion cites their scripture as truth.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Apologies, I see you are actually using the word Christianity, but it does appear you want to talk about the bible. Let me rephrase my post accordingly:
Okay, so 6 * 1000 = 6000. Not 13.4 billion. If you're going to use the words in the bible, then the words have to mean something, right? If you're just going to say "well, a thousand means 223 million maybe," then there's no point in having this discussion at all. Did ancient hebrews even have a concept of "a billion" anything? THat seems pretty advanced thinking for a culture who contributed so little of import to their time. If you'd like to discuss does the bible contradict science and vice versa, then I'm afraid you have to use the words in the bible as we currently understand these words, otherwise the bible is entirely meaningless as a document. NUmbers especially, as these don't have any interpretation to them, specifically SMALL numbers. 10 has always meant 10. 6 has always meant 6. See what I'm saying?
And if you're going to use the bible, then please note which version you are using so we can discuss that specific version, and please tell me why you're choosing that version.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Don't you think it's pathetic to recur to science just so Christianity has a little bit of credibility in these times when nobody believes anymore in the cockamamie stories of the bible?
It's useless to ask science for help when we all know science and religion is like oil and water, they will never get along.
It's useless to ask science for help when we all know science and religion is like oil and water, they will never get along.
-->
@Intelligence_06
It is only a matter of interpretation and it is especially harmful the deliberately anti-science interpretations. Like "literally believing" God made from the core to the biosphere in 6 days, because all evidence would be circular reasoning, as it would have come from nowhere except historical scrolls and organized transcripts from them.
The Biblical text lines up with scientific fact.
In the Bible, when it talks about Gods perspective, we have to look at it in a different way then we view human perspectives.
So, when the Bible says the universe was created in 6 days, that is from Gods perspective, because there were no humans around.
And in 2 Peter 3:8 (sorry I got the verse wrong before) it says," But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
So, Gods perception of Time works differently than ours, if I can even call it a perception.
-->
@Vegasgiants
Christianity requires faith not evidenceScience requires evidence not faith
Not necessarily.
Science claims that the Big Bang was not produced by any God. Or that is at least what Atheists claim.
Takes a lot of faith to believe that everything came from a meaningless explosion, and that no higher force caused it.
-->
@ludofl3x
Okay, so 6 * 1000 = 6000.
Did you read what I said at all?
I literally bolded the word like.
But in Revelations, it says that one day for God is like (metaphor) a thousand years for us.
Meaning that this is not literal, but simply a Metaphor.
A metaphor that shows that time for God is different than time for us.
-->
@IlDiavolo
Don't you think it's pathetic to recur to science just so Christianity has a little bit of credibility
Christianity has a lot of credibility.
For one, the bible was written over a span of 2000 years, but has over 63,000 cross references.
Secondly, all reliable biblical scholars and even some atheist ones agree without a shadow of a doubt on Jesus's existence.
And things like Noah's Ark, letters to King David, and many more Biblical artifacts have been found to prove its legitimacy.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Meaning that this is not literal, but simply a Metaphor.A metaphor that shows that time for God is different than time for us.
Maybe, but a thousand years is an equation, not a metaphor. And you didn't understand what I pointed out. The metaphor says it's like a thousand years. It does not say "a day for god is like 223 million years." So that doesn't work. The words are the words. If you want to argue from the bible, you have to use the words as we understand them. And revelations is written long, long after Genesis, that metaphor might hold a little more weight if it were chronologically closer to the point in question.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
And things like Noah's Ark, letters to King David, and many more Biblical artifacts have been found to prove its legitimacy.
Please tell me more about the bolded. How many metaphors are in that story?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
There are strikingly similar stories in the Bible that predate Christianity within older religions. Are you sure the Christian god isn’t a false god?
-->
@ludofl3x
but a thousand years is an equation, not a metaphor.
How do you know?
Again, we are talking reference to Gods perspective.
And Gods perspective works differently than ours.
. The metaphor says it's like a thousand years. It does not say "a day for god is like 223 million years."
Ok, I don't know if you passed middle school, but that's literally the whole point of a metaphor. It isn't to be taken literally.
-->
@Reece101
100% sure.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
A thousand is a specific number, is it not? It doesn't say "innumerable years," it says THIS NUMBER OF YEARS. It doesn't even say ten thousand or one hundred thousand. It says one thousand. So the words are there, they are specific. This point is stupid, because this still doesn't address that light can't come before stars. Let's do Noah's Ark instead. There's less metaphor in that story, right? And it's definitely contradicted by what we know today. Do you think the Noah's Ark story is scientifically accurate as it's written?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Your interpretation is certainly more believable although I think the word "absolute" is a little too strong here, but believe it or not there are real living people that believe the entire biosphere is created within a 144-hour period after the solar system even has anything in it at all.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Explosions happen all the time. No God required
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Christianity has a lot of credibility.For one, the bible was written over a span of 2000 years, but has over 63,000 cross references.Secondly, all reliable biblical scholars and even some atheist ones agree without a shadow of a doubt on Jesus's existence.And things like Noah's Ark, letters to King David, and many more Biblical artifacts have been found to prove its legitimacy.
I almost shit my pants laughing at what you just said. 🤣
In all seriousness, stop already thinking that the bible can explain everything in this life. That's ludicrous!!! I acknowledge that the bible is a source of inspiration for millions of people but that's all, it's only a self-help set of books, no more no less. Get over it!!
See:
Jesus Never Existed: An Introduction to the Ultimate Heresy
In the space of this hard-hitting monograph and supplemental interview, dissident scholar Kenneth Humphreys interrogates the biblical and historical evidence to offer this concise and pithy exposition of a “fringe” idea whose time has come. Not content to merely poke holes in tall tales from antiquity, Humphreys presents a surprisingly straightforward case that Jesus, thought by millions of naïve believers to have been God incarnate, or at least the Son of God, was not even a man.
Until now, most scholars of religion have, at least publicly, been content to repeat the safe and conciliatory assurance that a Jesus “probably” existed. But we may well be approaching a tipping point when those same scholars, confronted with powerful evidence and an inquisitive public, will summon the courage to aver that Jesus “probably” never existed after all.
Having devoted much of his life to the careful study of ancient history, Humphreys harbors no doubt: Jesus, the non-existent son of a non-existent father, will soon be consigned to a place among his ancestors–Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses–in the realm of mythology, not history.
-->
@FLRW
See:Jesus Never Existed: An Introduction to the Ultimate HeresyIn the space of this hard-hitting monograph and supplemental interview, dissident scholar Kenneth Humphreys interrogates the biblical and historical evidence to offer this concise and pithy exposition of a “fringe” idea whose time has come. Not content to merely poke holes in tall tales from antiquity, Humphreys presents a surprisingly straightforward case that Jesus, thought by millions of naïve believers to have been God incarnate, or at least the Son of God, was not even a man.Until now, most scholars of religion have, at least publicly, been content to repeat the safe and conciliatory assurance that a Jesus “probably” existed. But we may well be approaching a tipping point when those same scholars, confronted with powerful evidence and an inquisitive public, will summon the courage to aver that Jesus “probably” never existed after all.Having devoted much of his life to the careful study of ancient history, Humphreys harbors no doubt: Jesus, the non-existent son of a non-existent father, will soon be consigned to a place among his ancestors–Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses–in the realm of mythology, not history.
that's not an argument if you just regurgitate someone's conclusion. it's an appeal to authority fallacy. the fact remains that there's historical evidence that Jesus existed, and the consensus of historicans is that he did.
-->
@n8nrgim
Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man.
-->
@n8nrgim
When did you say that Jesus would return?
-->
@FLRW
there's no archeological evidence for a lot of historical figures that we know existed.
"Roman historians Pliny and Tacitus also wrote about Jesus Christ about 20 years after Josephus's book. The “Annals” by Tacitus from AD 115 mentioned the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate executing Jesus, alluding to crucifixion, and placed that event within the timeframe that agrees with Christian gospels."
"Jesus's historical existence is generally accepted among scholars. The evidence for the reality of Jesus Christ includes writings by historians, artifacts and eyewitness accounts."
"Based on the evidence we have, can anyone with certainly say Jesus really existed about 2,000 years ago? While incontrovertible proof may be impossible to come by, those who study the period believe there was someone named Jesus Christ living in the area and time period that we generally agree on, said archaeologist Eric Meyers, emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University.
“I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Meyers.”The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”"
“I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Meyers.”The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”"